MORE ON THE MYTH OF JUNK DNA
[TBC: Evolutionists have been shown repeatedly that things they have called “vestigial organs,” or things now considered useless as a consequence of evolution are not so. The appendix has been called a vestigial organ, yet more recent examination has shown it to have a specific beneficial function for the body. Evolutionists also have argued that “junk DNA” is an example of DNA with no discernible or useful function. They are labeled “non coding.” Yet, recent evidence has shown that non-coding (i.e., useless) DNA indeed does have a role in the body.]
Exploding the Darwin-Friendly Myth of Junk DNA [Excerpts]
This just in from [the strong promoter of evolution] Nature Magazine of all places. [Human genome at ten: Life is complicated: The more biologists look, the more complexity there seems to be. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html]
“Not that long ago, biology was considered by many to be a simple science, a pursuit of expedition, observation and experimentation.”
Also not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm.
“Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA – what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA – has been fascinating and befuddling.
[TBC: DNA and RNA are the two different types of nucleic acid, something found in every living cell as essential elements of life.]
Much non-coding DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different varieties seem to control gene expression at the level of both DNA and RNA transcripts in ways that are still only beginning to become clear.
“Just the sheer existence of these exotic regulators suggests that our understanding about the most basic things – such as how a cell turns on and off – is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.”
The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?